gumbymaster

I just reread her post and first response, and I just didn't see it that way. GM did sound a little bitter, as could be expected of someone who felt they had been "Thrown under the bus.". Only the Title of the post and the dig at the council office and popcorn felt belligerent to me. She wasn't expecting fame or riches for her service. Maybe she posted here hoping to get some form of "you did right", and found that the forum generally shared the opinion of her Council and CC rather than her, but I think there were kinder ways for us to collectively educate on the issue. By the time she wrote, it seems the die was cast - what value do we present by also being belligerent. How many future contributors have we stunned into silence with the ferocity of our response. We are Scouts. Even if she was rude in the question, and I still don't think she was, we still have a duty to respond courteously.

While I could certainly be missing something here, here is my take ... GM agreed to be HELPFUL to her pack and take on a job of some responsibility. She did not enter this job with the intent of creating problems and the pack considered her TRUSTWORTHY enough to trust her with some control over the pack funds, and to be responsible in that role. While she may, or may not have been overzealous, that trust was not misplaced. GM was put into a position she was uncomfortable with, and tried to do what she thought was right. We should all be so BRAVE. Ok, so she did not blindly accept from others with a clear interest in the status quo that this was not a problem. - ok she wasn't OBEDIENT/LOYAL. But I would not blindly accept the word of the Council or others either. Heck, I had a long discussion with my insurance agent over additional personal liability insurance when I agreed to be the CM for my pack. When given conflicting statements of who was responsible to resolve an issue, CO vs. unit, she reasonably sought out advice (presumably on her own dime, THRIFTY for the pack) and while that advice may not have been correct, it was not malicious or ill intentioned. Her adviser was probably unaware of the nuances of how scout units are organized and chartered for just these types of reasons. She didn't threaten or blackmail anyone, when confronted with the situation she was uncomfortable with, she worked to remove herself from the situation and provide the appropriate information to appropriate people. We can argue that as Treasurer, her responsibility may have stopped when she told the CC - obviously she felt that that would fall on deaf ears. I would never presume to stop one of my parents with concerns about myself or my CC from going to the CO/COR. She wasn't aware of the (potential) political repercussions of doing what she thought was the correct and legal way to resolve the issue. So what. It is not her resposibility to change doing what she thinks is right or wrong because of political considerations or the risk (no matter how big) of doing what she believes is right. While it probably could have been done without the cover letter, providing the appropriate tax information to the CO probably was what she should have done. Now I need to check and see if my own unit has been doing this. For most COs, this is just closing the loop, not creating a tax issue. Maybe she could have also just reported the information for the year of her responsibility, and not worried about prior years. As correctly stated, packs generally do not file their own taxes as they are not in of themselves legal entities, so raising the issue of prior years may have made people incorrectly and overly concerned, but again it was not malicious. The Council/DE failed to be COURTEOUS or KIND to GM in trying to offer a reasonable explanation of this is (apparently) a non-issue. Having already submitted the information, I'm not even sure what anyone hoped to gain by bullying her in this way. Some members of our happy campfire were also unkind and discourteous in how they responded to a forum post created from genuine concern of the problem. I mean really - I see nothing in what she did that makes Scouting a better program without her. Other members of this forum were more HELPFUL in trying to convey why this isn't really an issue, and if this could have been communicated from the start, there would probably be less of an issue for everyone involved. While I find nothing CHEERFUL in this situation or thread, GM if you are still watching this thread, I thank you and personally respect your efforts. I wish there would have been a more reasoned resolution for both sides sake. As for suggestions that we should have left her post deleted, or remove the thread - I disagree. We cannot learn from the situation, and it is bound to be repeated some day, if the correct answers are unavailable for searching. Yours in Scouting

Be very careful about that BBQ fund raiser. Many communities require sold food to be prepared at a licensed and health-department rated facility. And if, heaven forbid, someone were to get sick, it would be your insurance, etc. covering the risk.

Admittedly I've been a lurker since I rejoined with Scouting for my son two years ago. I only created the account a few months ago, because I was going to consider getting into the membership debate - but then thought better of it. No matter how well reasoned my thoughts on the subject, I wouldn't change the mind of anyone on either side of the issue. I guess this one was just too close to home for me to remain silent.

From 3000 miles away, I can’t pretend to know about the specifics of what has been going on recently, but having been on the staff of that camp from 1984 to 1993, I can say I am a little aware of the history. First, let me say that I respect Kim Kuska very much. I earned my Environmental Science MB and world conservation awards through his direction at the camp’s Nature Lodge. I also know that in myself and many others, we were instilled with a sense of respect for many of the rare and endangered flora and fauna at that camp, including the dudley’s lousewart, rare albino redwoods, and even spotted owls. As for “noted environmentalistâ€Â, I don’t know his academic credentials or publication record, but I think most people from the Monterey / Santa Cruz area would consider him an environmentalist of some note. It has been the major portion of his identity for the nearly 30 years I’ve known him. He also never impressed me as the “we must leave nature to nature†or “man go home†type. He often participated in backwoods activities in the Ventana wilderness, with Scouts and church groups alike. From my perspective, much of the issues in the late 80’s came down to the actions of a few specific individuals, whom, employee or not, I cannot tell if they acted of their own accord or with the Council’s actual blessing. Many Scouters at the time believed that these individuals were trying to set up a means for the Council to sell the camp, but I don’t know if that was true. During this time, Kim was treated as persona-non-grata as he was a constant thorn in their side. I too shared some frustration with Kim, as his actions did influence the programs we were trying to put on; and it was not often apparent what the actual issues were or if there were alternative methods to mitigate the issue. While I was there, we did take precautions to protect known dudley’s lousewart growths and other plants. In the case of the albino redwoods, we only showed the ones about a mile from the central camp to the Scouts so that the ones that were actually in one of the campsites could remain unknown and hidden. I also only remember a single planned cut of an old growth redwood during that time, and a couple natural falls that were also logged, but admit that I was less aware of actions outside the camp central areas or things done off-season. The dam, and dredging (which was the real issue at the time) were the constant problems which endangered the camp’s ability to even have a water program. Some time after I left, the Council decided to invest in the camp and went on a building spree, putting in the Dining hall building and other decent toilet facilities; but even on my last visit a few years ago, when I actually did see Kim Kuska and many other old friends, the camp is/was still largely undeveloped. That said, I hold the following opinions on what I have read here and in the attached articles. The Council does need to be responsible for their mistakes or other actions taken outside permits. If Kim was actually planting seeds, there would have been many much more suitable areas at that camp than near the central facilities to do so, as I said, much of the camp is undeveloped. If Kim was planting seeds without permission, then the Council would be well within their rights to require supervision while at the camp or even to provide notice that he was no longer permitted on the camp property. If Kim was using his position as a Scouter to advance a political/environmental addenda then, I do believe the Council/BSA were within their rights to deny his membership renewal, as this is not a permitted activity – However, from the materials available, it appears that his actions and “reports†were conducted as a “concerned citizen†or from his environmental group memberships, in which case I do not think that denying his membership in Scouts should be allowed. When we allow the BSA or their representatives to punish any of us (Scout/Scouter) for actions taken while not representing ourselves as Scouts, and while not fundamentally violating the Scout Oath or Law, even if it ultimately inconveniences the BSA/et. al, I think this sets a dangerous precedent that we should all be concerned about. If the only ‘improper act’ was blowing the whistle or embarrassing the BSA/et. al by pointing out their own improprieties – then this is the wrong act to take. Then again, this is ultimately the same organization that seems to be pretending that Green Bar Bill didn’t exist because his message was/is currently inconvenient.